St. Thomas Aquinas Says the Best Way to Dissipate Errors is:
"Make The Truth Known"
by Jane McAuley, past Editor and Coralie Graham, Editor
Several reports have reached this office that certain officials in the Vatican do not agree with The Fatima Crusader. Some even claim the Holy Father thinks he has already fulfilled the request of Our Lady of Fatima to consecrate Russia.
A certain bishop in Eastern Canada reports in his diocesan newspaper remarks which he attributes to a high Vatican dignitary. Since we have other information which tends to contradict his report we choose here not to name the dignitary. But we mention it here, because the accusation is made in public and is made by a bishop who gives his own name as reporting the incident. We do not question the goodwill of the bishop reporter, but we reserve judgment as to its complete accuracy, since other reliable information reaching us would nullify his report.
Nevertheless, since the matter is so serious, we will raise the issue he raises. This certain bishop of Eastern Canada refers to remarks by a high Vatican dignitary, apparently referring to us as "extremists", of "a certain cast of mind", "who refuse to be convinced".
In the light of these serious accusations made by a bishop against anyone who agrees with The Fatima Crusader — regarding the urgent necessity we all have that the Pope and the bishops consecrate Russia, — we think our readers should be aware of the ongoing opposition to the Consecration of Russia by certain bishops and even some Vatican officials.
At the same time we note that elsewhere in this issue we have published a few, very few, of the more than 250 letters of support we have received from Cardinals, Patriarchs, Archbishops and Bishops around the world.
"Extremist" Label Applied to Those
Who Will Not Question
the Specific Directives of God
It is interesting to note a number of Bishops and Cardinals living closer to the horrible effects of Communist control see first hand that Russian Communism has NOT been converted. They KNOW Our Lady's Peace Plan — the Consecration of Russia — has not been done and that it is their only hope.
That looming menace of total Communist control shall soon be upon the West. No longer will the rose coloured glasses that too many of our clergy wear be able to camouflage this ever-growing, impending threat.
Name Calling is Not a Valid Response
With regard to the labels "extremists" and "refuse to be convinced", I think that our readers know (but apparently some bishops do not know) that such name calling is not a valid response to the solid facts and theology we have been publishing on this question since 1983.
To our widespread publication of these facts, there is no argument against our position that we have not answered in our magazine or in Father Gruner's book World Enslavement or Peace ... It's Up to the Pope. We can only invite the bishop in question, to come up with any new objection we have not yet answered and we shall respond intelligently to him.
However, if he has already convinced himself, or allowed others to convince him, that we are "extremists", who "refuse to be convinced", we can only say the labels more accurately apply to himself since we are willing to hear his line of reasoning but he is unwilling to hear us.
Among the bishops and Cardinals, there is growing support for the solemn and public Consecration of Russia by the Pope and all the bishops of the Catholic world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
At the same time, there is growing opposition. Both support and opposition come at times from surprising quarters. It is 60 years now since private attempts have been made to reach the Holy Father to have him consecrate Russia according to Our Lady of Fatima's request. So far it has not been done.
The Consecration of Russia is Blocked
Obviously, there is some obstacle, the first obstacle doubtless is satan and his followers. Satan is able to oppose this request of Our Lady because of the sins of men. So our first response must be Spiritual; Repentance, Prayer and Reparation.
But to our Prayer, we must also join our work. On the natural level, the primary obstacle blocking the Consecration of Russia is the ignorance of the Church regarding this request. Thus it is important that we publish the truth.
Perhaps even more than the total ignorance that some people suffer from in this matter — is the partial ignorance of which some bishops and Vatican officials suffer. That is, they think they know Fatima, they think they know about the Consecration, but they don't. As the old saying goes "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
Before some of our newer readers think we are slightly conceited in writing the above — let us protest that we too do not know many things. Further let our readers know that we too for the first years of our work in this Apostolate had been fooled by the disinformation campaign conducted against the full Fatima message that we did not know sufficiently about the Consecration of Russia request.
So it is not out of a "holier than thou" attitude or "We are smarter than you are" attitude, but it is because it is a fact — that there are still some bishops and some Vatican officials who still don't know enough about Fatima and the Consecration request, even though they should. We too were ignorant for the first years of our work in this Apostolate. So we claim to be neither smarter nor holier than they.
We know there is ignorance about the Consecration of Russia, because it is obvious and clear that if all the bishops and Vatican officials know the full implications of the Fatima message they would not have delayed so long in consecrating Russia in the format required.
We Cannot Believe that the Bishops Would Willingly Withhold World Peace From Us
Having said this, it seems the only way to dissipate this lack of knowledge is to continually, publicly expound on this point until it is all clarified. St. Thomas Aquinas said the best way to get rid of error is to make the truth known.
We continue to encourage all who have access to bishops and Vatican officials, to explain the matter to them at length. Our part is to continue to publish the facts for the whole Church to know the urgent and absolute necessity the world has for the Pope and the bishops to consecrate Russia.
In this regard, we think it necessary to amend the statement of Cardinal Gagnon that we reported in issue No. 24 of The Fatima Crusader. It seems our initial report of Cardinal Gagnon's word was not wrong but that Cardinal Gagnon appears to have changed his mind.
Since Cardinal Gagnon has come out publicly against the public campaign of the Consecration of Russia, we publish here his letters to us in full, with our full response to answer objections that he raises against the over 100,000 persons who wrote to the Vatican last year petitioning for the Consecration of Russia. (See "The Letters from and to Cardinal Gagnon" below)
Furthermore, Cardinal Gagnon has apparently allowed his name to be publicly used to attack this Apostolate. In order to set the record straight, this correspondence needs to be published at this time.
A number of persons have asked about Cardinal Gagnon's alleged statements and various efforts to secure his denial have been unsuccessful. In light of the fact that the only argument that the enemies of the Consecration can bring forward to stop us from publishing the truth about the Consecration of Russia, is to attack our personal reputations with lies, half-truths and innuendo — all of it without any foundation in fact — we must also dissipate this error with the truth.
With regard to private statements allegedly made by the Pope to either a Cardinal or a bishop or a priest, we draw our readers attention to the public statements made by Pope John Paul II on March 25, 1984 — they are referred to in the body of this letter to Cardinal Gagnon.
We also photographically reproduce here a copy of the Pope's statement from the ItalianL'Osservatore Romano, dated March 26, 1984, which contains Pope John Paul II's AD LIB clearly indicating he knows he has not consecrated Russia in the manner Our Lady of Fatima asked him to.
If all this is not enough proof, we refer our readers to Father Gruner's book World Enslavement or Peace ... It's Up to the Pope for more complete proof.
Note: sub-titles are added by the editor of The Fatima Crusader
April 15, 1988
Dear Father Gruner,
I have been informed that a recent issue of The Fatima Crusader has my picture on the cover page and says that a number of cardinals have stated or told you that the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary has not been made according to the will of Our Lady of Fatima.
False Accusations Made Against
The Fatima Crusader
I write this letter in a spirit of fraternity, before certain excesses of your zeal and unfounded affirmations in your publications bring upon your apostolate a condemnation from the highest Church authorities.
I have tried to be patient and understanding when you have put obstacles to my work by quoting me out of context. We accepted, without protesting, the burden of work you imposed on me and on our personnel when you disrupted the normal and important priorities of the mission of the Council for the Family, by asking people to write us about what you consider to be the Holy Father's duty.
I suppose you know that the text of the letter you suggested your readers to write is very similar to the one suggested by the unauthentic seer of Bayside. How can you think that the Pope will yield to the pressure of those persons who have spread the false revelation that Pope Paul VI had been kidnapped and replaced by a look-alike when he had occasions to see his predecessor until his death?
But the question is most serious. It involves a false notion of the Church and the Magisterium of its leaders.
It would be a great act of pride from a son of the Church to pretend he knows the will of God and in particular the revelations of Fatima better than the Pope. The Pope has talked with Sister Lucia and is responsible enough to know what he has to do.
The Pope has the privilege of infallibility and a special gift to lead the Church. Private revelations can help him but are not binding on him, and much less the interpretations given to such revelations.
The Holy Spirit helps him in other ways too and it is his exclusive responsibility to decide what he has to do as Head of the Church. In particular he is the only one to decide on how a consecration should be made and to know if it has been made. No one can pass judgment on him. What The Fatima Crusader has published on his physical and spiritual weakness is a blatant insult to our Holy Father.
I have witnesses to the fact that some priest who works for you has made such affirmation in religious houses. It is also a great lack of judgment and fidelity to the Church to try and put the cardinals in opposition to the Holy Father.
Furthermore it is a strange notion of the functioning of the Magisterium, to think that the Holy Father is like an elected member of a democratic parliament and makes his decisions according to the number of letters he receives.
The Fatima Crusader and its Readers Asked to Ignore the Requests of Our Lady of Fatima
I therefore ask you most seriously to publish in the Crusader a clear retraction of what I consider to do great harm to the unity of the Church that is:
-1st: An invitation to your readers to stop sending letters to cardinals and other members of the Holy See, explaining that it is a false notion of the Magisterium to assume that the Holy Father can act under pressure according to the number of letters received.
-2nd: A retraction of the affirmation that I personally and other cardinals have declared that the consecration of Russia has not been made.
It might cost you very much to make that act of humility, but your decisions will show if you are motivated purely by your devotion to Mary inside the Church or if you side with those who use the Fatima revelation for their own profit or self promotion. Many people here are waiting for such a clarification.
May Our Blessed Mother to whom the Holy Father is so faithful, obtain for you the light of the Holy Spirit.
Fraternally in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary,
Edouard Cardinal GAGNON p.s.s.
The Fatima Crusader Responds
August 15, 1988
Feast of The Assumption
Edouard Cardinal Gagnon,
00120 Stato Citta Del Vaticano
I have received and read your letter of April 15th, 1988, received only at the end of April. I intended to write you earlier. I drafted a letter but was unable to finish it before now since I have been extremely busy.
Due to various accusations and allegations set forth in that letter, I am obliged in the interest of justice towards the Catholic faithful and hierarchy to reply to you.
You mentioned that you had "been informed" about a recent issue of The Fatima Crusader; i.e. that it "says that a number of Cardinals have stated or told you that the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary has not been made according to the will of Our Lady of Fatima."
The wording of this opening statement of yours indicates that you did not actually read the article yourself and that you do not possess very precise knowledge as to what was stated therein.
Therefore, I would first of all, like to briefly explain to you what I did in fact publish in that issue regarding the Cardinals' statements concerning the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
1) On November 26, 1987 and on December 7, 1987, Cardinal Alfons M. Stickler made statements before witnesses regarding Our Lady of Fatima's request. The first statement, to David Martin of Los Angeles, was made in reference to a letter to the Pope requesting the Consecration of Russia. In the latter statement, made on December 7, 1987, to Michael Mangan and Lewis Harrington of New York City, Cardinal Stickler, speaking about the Consecration of Russia said, "it has not been done in the form requested by Our Lady of Fatima. Her request is not fulfilled". He later reiterated, "The Consecration is not done, conditions are not fulfilled".
2) January 17, 1988 — Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, referring to the above mentioned Consecration, stated to Elizabeth Rooney, "I know it has to be done" ... meaning it had not been done yet, as of January 27, 1988.
3) October 25, 1987 — Cardinal Paul A. Mayer announced before Victor Kulanday, a publisher from Madras, India and his peers from eleven other countries that the Consecration requested by Our Lady of Fatima had not been done.
4) You, Cardinal Gagnon, apparently made a similar statement around the time of our Symposium on Fatima held in Vatican City on the opening day at the Extraordinary 1985 Synod in Rome. In The Fatima Crusader Issue No. 24 we reported that Cardinal Edouard Gagnon stated to Abbe Pierre Caillon, a French Professor of Theology and a guest speaker at our Vatican Symposium on Fatima that the Consecration of Russia requested by Our Lady of Fatima was not yet done.
The published text concerning this matter appears in Issue No. 24, March-May, 1988, "Russia Never Consecrated to Mary in Format Ordered by Our Lady of Fatima" of The Fatima Crusader.
Regarding the Retractions You Asked For
In your letter, you asked for "a retraction of the affirmation that I personally and other Cardinals have declared that the Consecration of Russia has not been made". First, regarding the other Cardinals; I cannot at this time consider any retraction whatever because none of those three Cardinals expressed to me any denial of what I have published concerning them, and none has expressed any displeasure or disapproval for my having done so.
Secondly, regarding that which we published concerning yourself; the text of the article says that you spoke personally with Father Caillon about this matter and he says that you expressed the opinion that the Consecration of Russia was not yet done. Now you ask me for a retraction, when you have not even denied to have ever made the statement. If you wish to retract or deny what we have reported you to have said, then do so by all means, and we will publish your statement to that effect.
However, in that case, in fairness to our publication and all concerned, I must point out that the fact is that Father Caillon himself told me that you told him that the Consecration requested by Our Lady of Fatima was not yet done. In fairness to Father Caillon, if you at some time in the future do deny Father Caillon's report, of course I shall have to ask for his comment.
I have made my best effort to verify the quotations before publishing them, making sure that the witnesses were persons worthy of credence and I even obtained a voice recording of one Cardinal's statement which appeared in the Crusader. I know Father Caillon to be a serious man who is careful about how he quotes others. Obviously, therefore, I cannot simply retract all of these statements for no reason other than that they are displeasing to you.
The Pope's Prerogatives and Limitations
I am in full agreement with your statement that "the Pope has the privilege of infallibility and a special gift to lead the Church", but from this it does not follow that we are thereby obligated to agree with the Pope's private and unofficial judgments. However, concerning the Fatima revelations; we need not theorize about what the Pope and Sister Lucy believe, or what they might have said to each other in their private conversations because both have spoken publicly on the matter.
Sister Lucy Has Spoken Publicly
In her official, formal and public statement of March 19, 1983, Sister Lucy stated in the most explicit terms possible that in order to fulfill Our Lady of Fatima's request, Russia must be the clearly stated object of the consecration and this consecration must be performed by the Pope and by all the bishops of the world, on the same day, with each bishop performing it in his own Cathedral in a solemn public ceremony. Now, in view of the fact that Sister Lucy has issued this statement publicly and for the record, as she has similarly stated on other occasions in writing, it would simply be absurd to suppose or theorize that she has deviated from that position in her private talks with the Pope.
Pope John Paul II Publicly Admits
the Consecration is Not Done
Furthermore, the Holy Father expressed his thoughts on the matter when on March 25, 1984, he had already consecrated the world several hours earlier to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, he addressed Our Lady inside St. Peter's in front of the Statue of Our Lady of Fatima, these words:
"We wished to choose this Sunday for the act of entrusting and consecration of the world, of the great human family of all peoples especially those who have a very great need of this consecration and entrustment, OF THOSE PEOPLES FOR WHOM YOU YOURSELF ARE AWAITING OUR ACT OF CONSECRATION."
Earlier that same day the Holy Father asked Our Lady to "enlighten especially the people whose consecration and entrusting You are awaiting from us". The Pope uttered those words just moments after he had consecrated the world. The Pope, by these statements in front of the Statue of Our Lady of Fatima has publicly acknowledged the inadequacy of all the consecrations that had been performed up to and including that time.
The preceeding facts prove that the Pope and Sister Lucy concur in the opinion that the Consecration of Russia requested by Our Lady of Fatima has not yet been fulfilled, and it is therefore absurd for you to accuse me of trying to "put the Cardinals in opposition to the Holy Father". It is you, Your Eminence, who expressed an opinion that differs from the publicly expressed opinion of Sister Lucy and the Pope when you told the Catholics United for the Faith that the Consecration requested by Our Lady of Fatima was already done. This was reported to me in May, 1988.
Answers to Other Unjustified Accusations
Further on in your letter you accuse me of publishing "a blatant insult to Our Holy Father". The Fatima Crusader has not published any statement alleging "Physical and spiritual weakness" of the Holy Father.
Quite frankly, I do not know what text you are referring to. Perhaps you are referring to the passage in Crusader No. 24 where it is stated that "The Pope feels helpless because he needs the bishops' cooperation. Since he knows they will not cooperate under present day circumstances, he feels he can do nothing further."
If this is indeed the passage to which you refer, then I can only point out that this is what Cardinal Stickler said on November 26, 1987. I am told Cardinal Carberry wrote in 1980 (cf Soul, 1980) a similar statement. So if you are going to accuse me of insulting the Holy Father for publishing this statement, then you might as well accuse your colleagues in the Sacred College for stating the same thing.
If there is something in The Fatima Crusader that you consider derogatory about the Holy Father, then I would appreciate it if you would have the courtesy to indicate the passage which you consider to be offensive.
Similarly, regarding your allegation that I have quoted you out of context; please provide a reference to some particular quotation which to your mind appears to have been taken out of context.
You also mention that you have witnesses to the fact that some priest who claims to work for me has made some sort of affirmation about the Holy Father which you consider derogatory. I can only answer that I am not the superior of any priest. If you have some complaint against that priest, you can refer that matter to his bishop. Furthermore, unless you provide me with the name of the priest, what he is alleged to have said and to whom, then I cannot interest myself any further with such vague statements about some unidentified priest.
Quite frankly, I cannot understand why you interrupt the "burden of work" you mentioned at the Council for the Family in order to gather information and witnesses against a priest who is alleged to have done nothing more than to say that the Pope is weak. After all, there is nothing in that against faith or morals, and I even know there are certain prelates in the Roman Curia who have made the same observation.
I know that even you, Your Eminence when speaking about the Pope's manner of dealing with the U.S. Hierarchy, told The Wanderer: "Personally, I am for a more severe attitude in this matter".
The Fatima Crusader Has Over
One Million Readers
Now, since you insist on bringing up the subject of the alleged apparitions of Bayside and questioning me about it, I will answer your question. Although I have never published anything or publicly spoken on the topic, I am very much aware of the fact that the text of the letter suggested by the alleged seer bears some resemblance to the text of the petitions that had appeared in The Fatima Crusader previously.
Similarly, I am also aware of the fact that portions of the alleged revelations are often similar in their content to materials that had previously appeared in The Fatima Crusader. Are you aware that each issue of The Fatima Crusader is read by over 1,000,000 people? Is it not reasonable to assume that some readers may also be people who believe in Bayside?
But why do you accuse me of thinking "that the Pope will yield to the pressure of those persons who have spread the false revelations ...?" I have never published anything about Bayside nor have I ever promoted the alleged revelations reported to be taking place there. Therefore, what is it that has led you to believe that I am somehow involved with a pressure campaign, which according to your information, the Bayside people are engaged in?
Innocent of Accusations
In brief, I am totally innocent of your allegations or insinuations of any wrongdoing. If you think that they have a strange notion of the functioning of the Magisterium, or that they think that the Holy Father is like an elected official who makes his decisions according to the number of letters he receives, then you ought to address your complaints to them, and stop insinuating that I am siding "with those who (according to your letter) use the Fatima Revelations for their own profit or self promotion".
I am in full agreement that it is a strange notion that the Pope may be compelled to act against his informed Catholic conscience, as a result of a pressure campaign orchestrated by particular groups.
I share your conviction that this sort of false theology does harm to the unity of the Church, but I fail to understand why you ask me to make a "clear retraction" of this heretical notion of the Magisterium to which I have never subscribed nor have I ever expressed, taught, or promoted in any way.
The Fatima Crusader's Orthodox Theology
Furthermore, in this most serious matter, before making such allegations against me, please first of all read what I have written. Such unfounded allegations by Your Eminence does in fact do grave harm to ecclesiastical unity and is a disservice to Our Lady's Apostolate. It is an injustice what you write.
I have appealed to my readers to "Pray for the Pope. Help him by petitioning the bishops to support him in his effort to consecrate Russia". I have published a petition to the Holy Father which cites Vatican Council II and which states that the faithful have the obligation and right to make known to their pastors what their spiritual needs are. (Const. Of the Church Par. 37).
It has been solemnly defined by Vatican I and the Second Council of Lyons in 1274, that the faithful have the right to have recourse to the Pope in matters which pertain to ecclesiastical jurisdiction. This is the basis for my appeal to the Holy Father, and I have explained this and the bishops' obligation to obey Our Lady at some length in The Fatima Crusader, Issues No. 9-10, 11-12, 16, 17, 18, 22, 23, and 24.
Most recently in Issue No. 23 of The Fatima Crusader (Sept.-Oct. 1987), I explained (as I had explained in previous issues), that "all members of the Catholic Church have the right and sometimes even the obligation (see Vatican II Lumen Gentium No. 37) to petition the Holy Father in matters pertaining to ecclesiastical jurisdiction.
It is solemnly defined by the Second Council of Lyons, as well as the First Vatican Council that each member of the Catholic Church has the right to seek a ruling from the Holy Father regarding matters pertaining to Church jurisdiction. And certainly Fatima is such a matter.
As the 5th Lateran Council tells us, the Pope is the judge with regard to prophetic revelations. Now the Message of Fatima is a prophetic revelation approved by the Pope and the Church. It states clearly that peace will only be given to the world when the Pope and the bishops obey the Command of God ... Since it is their duty, we have the right to ask the Pope to command the bishops ... we have the duty to use that right ... We exercise this right by respectfully bringing this matter to the attention of the Holy Father.
Let the Pope Make an Official Decision
We further point out that if in this matter the clear public statements of Sister Lucy and Our Lady of Fatima are not in accord with official Catholic teaching then the Pope may be appealed to that he make a timely Papal Official Magisterial Statement to that effect.
I have repeatedly explained my position in this matter at some length, and therefore it is an inexcusable and grave injustice that you have done to me by accusing me of error in your letter to me or making insinuations to that effect as you seemed to do in public in your address to the Catholics United for the Faith.
The heretical theology, which you presume to ascribe to me is in no way whatever the basis for my action in this matter. You err further when you accuse me of passing judgment on the Holy Father when I appeal to him to perform the Consecration of Russia in the manner requested by Our Lady of Fatima, and insinuate that I am infringing on "his exclusive responsibility to decide what he has to do as Head of the Church".
On the contrary, I am appealing to him to exercise the supreme authority which is exclusively his, in such a manner that will fulfill Our Lady of Fatima's request. In making this appeal, I have nowhere ever imputed guilt to the Holy Father.
Pope and Bishops are Obligated to Obey
Nevertheless, I am not alone in saying that the Pope and the bishops have the obligation to comply with Our Lady's request. Bishop Rudolf Graber pointed out, and we published it in The Fatima Crusader, Issue No. 19 that "careful distinction should be made between personal revelations directed solely toward the recipients of the message and those where the message is declared to be for mankind at large. The former can with equanimity be ignored, but the latter must be taken seriously, and Fatima belongs to this category."
The distinguished Carmelite Theologian, Joseph de Sainte Marie, O.C.D. explains, that the Church has the obligation to comply with the demands of Our Lady of Fatima. As we published inThe Fatima Crusader, Issue No. 9-10 and subsequent issues, Father Joseph de Sainte Marie says "it is true, that ultimate authority belongs to the hierarchy, to the bishops, to the Pope. However, the Pope must listen to the Prophet."
... "St. Paul says (1 Thess, 5: 19-21): 'Extinguish not the Spirit. Despise not prophecies; but prove all things, hold fast to that which is good ...' The Pontiff must discern — that is his duty — whether the words of the prophet are of God. But once he has judged and recognized that a given prophecy is indeed from God, then he must obey, not as obeying the prophet but as obeying God, whose instrument the prophet is ... it is the duty of the Pope and the bishops to obey Our Lady and to fulfill the demands She made at Fatima."
Pilgrims receive Holy Communion from Father Nicholas Gruner in the Church of Our Lady in Rianjo, Spain. It was here that Jesus told Sister Lucia that for delaying the command to consecrate Russia, His ministers, the bishops, were risking severe chastisement
Jesus Threatens Punishment of His Bishops for Delaying
Now, on June 13, 1929, Our Lady of Fatima declared to Sister Lucy: "The moment has come for God to ask the Holy Father to make, in union with all the bishops of the world, the Consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart." Two years later in August, 1931, Jesus said to Sister Lucy: "Make it known to My ministers, that it has been given to them that they follow the example of the King of France in delaying the execution of My command, and that like him, they will follow him into misfortune."
Our Lord has made it clear that the Consecration of Russia is His command and He threatens a dire punishment to the pastors of the Church if they do not obey it. When you say that "private revelations are not binding on him", are you suggesting that the Pope need not obey this command that Our Lord has communicated to the pastors of the Church by means of Sister Lucy?
The Holy Father. Pope John Paul II himself at Fatima said: "the Church feels that the Message of Fatima imposes a commitment on Her".
We Continue to Defend the Faithful's Rights
The Pope's own public utterance of March 25, 1984, makes it clear that he intends to comply with Our Lord's command. I agree that it is ultimately the Pope's exclusive responsibility to decide what he has to do as Head of the Church in this matter. I agree with you that "he is the only one to decide on how a consecration should be made and to know if it has been made".
Nevertheless, to date the Pope has not made any pronouncement or issued any official ruling in this matter, and until he does it is the right of the faithful and it is my right according to the solemnly defined dogma of the Catholic Faith to have recourse to the Holy Father.
Therefore, until the Pope either complies with Our Lady's request or issues an authentic authoritative Papal declaration concerning this matter, I will not invite my readers to stop exercising their right to appeal to the Holy See, and I will continue to exercise what the Church has declared to be my right, and I will petition the Pope that this matter be resolved once and for all.
Please, in Future be More Specific
You should not be gravely insinuating that I am guilty of heresy. I am not. You obviously have not read my material. If you think I am heretical, then please be specific, indicate specifically which passage(s) of the Crusader wherein I err regarding proper functioning of the magisterium.
If you are not satisfied after you have given me and our publication the benefit of elementary justice by being specific in telling us what dogma we have contradicted and telling us exactly what words you think are contrary to Catholic faith then you can refer the matter to the competent ecclesiastical authority, that is the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
But if you are unable to be specific in telling me what dogma I have contradicted and in telling me what proposition I have made as being unorthodox — then please in all justice and charity do not threaten me with unnamed sanctions by unnamed persons for unnamed crimes.
Since, up to now, you have not given me this act of elementary justice it is fair for me to conclude that your letter is not charitable despite your claims to the contrary since charity without justice is not at all charitable.
I can only answer you with the words of Saint Polycrates: "I am not frightened by things said as threats. Those greater than I have said, 'We must obey God rather than men'" (cf William A. Jungens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. I, p. 83)
Furthermore, please be specific about what you think the excesses of my zeal are: also be specific about what you think the unfounded affirmations you allege I am guilty and please refer to specific passages of our publication.
You accuse me of imposing a burden of work on you and your personnel by disrupting the priorities of the Council for the Family "by asking people to write to us about what you consider to be the Holy Father's duty".
Let me make myself perfectly clear in this matter. I have never published any request, specifying you or your Council, that anyone write, telephone or communicate in any way with you as if you were specially targeted by us.
Therefore, your accusation against The Fatima Crusader and myself in this regard is without basis. Where is it written in our magazine that you particularly are singled out to be written to?
One final question. How can you accuse me of quoting you out of context before you have even read the Issue No. 24 which you maintain you have not read at the time you wrote me? If you refer to an earlier issue, why write me about an issue that is years old and not even write me what exactly I have taken out of context?
Do you refer to The Fatima Crusader Issue No. 15 which you told me was not my fault? If so, why do you bring it up now as if it were my fault? If you wish us to set the record straight, please give us a statement we can print and tell the public what it refers to. I have the whole Wanderer article here if that is what you refer to.
To close, in response to your letter, I am guilty of NO transgression of any law, either moral or canonical law. Your judgments and your letter to me and your remarks to others in the Church is no doubt doing harm to this work of Our Lady.
If I am wrong tell me what specifically I have done; if I am not wrong, why do you persecute me? If I am not wrong, then you do wrong to attack me and my work. If you have done wrong then you owe it to Our Lady to repair the harm you have done. Would you believe it if I told you that I write this in a spirit of fraternal charity?
This letter is long enough. If you do not feel it adequately answered your concerns I refer you to The Fatima Crusader Issue No. 25 (August 1988) pages 15, 16, 17, 34, 35, 36, 41 and 43 where you will find the article "Answers to Questions and Critics" by Father Nicholas Gruner. I had your letter in mind when I wrote that article.
I must stop as I have no more time to devote to your letter. I look forward to a favorable response towards Our Lady's work in the near future.
Fraternally in the Sacred Heart of Jesus and
the Immaculate Heart of Mary,
Father Nicholas Gruner
P.S. In your interview published in The Wanderer, September 29, 1983, regarding criticizing the bishops in public, you are quoted as saying "Especially if you're in publishing you have to tell the truth and give information."
Since we are in publishing, and particularly in Fatima publishing, we are following your advice to publish the truth. That is why we speak about the necessity of the Pope and bishops to obey Our Lady of Fatima. They must consecrate Russia in the manner indicated by Our Lady of Fatima as soon as possible. And other Catholic publishers should also be publishing this most important truth too. I hope you will encourage them to do so.
(Enclosed were a copy of Issues No. 24 and 25 of The Fatima Crusader.)
October 7, 1988
Dear Father Gruner,
Thank you for your letter of August 15th and for the enclosed material.
In the light of the content of your long letter and the contrived "interview" in your magazine, I see that there is no reasonable way to convey my views to you.
By presuming to quote second-hand a private conversation, you have used me to support your own opinions concerning the Consecration to the Immaculate Heart.
Moreover, unwittingly, but with insensitive zeal, you have encouraged people to deluge this Dicastery of the Roman Curia with letter-writing pressure on the Supreme Pontiff. I believe that you are undermining the confidence of the faithful in the Holy Father by suggesting that he is weak and that the apocalyptic content of your magazine, more exaggerated with each issue, is spreading fear and anxiety among them.
I do not support your apostolate or the organization functioning from it. You are not to use my name henceforth in any publication of your organization.
Yours sincerely, in Jesus and Mary,
Edouard Cardinal Gagnon, P.S.S.,
In response to all Father Gruner's reasoned and factual response to Cardinal Gagnon's misconceptions, misinformation, and misjudgements all Cardinal Gagnon can reply seems to be — I do not agree with you and then repeat (with no reason given) some of his worst misjudgements.
Obviously, no reply to his letter was necessary. However another matter needed a letter to Cardinal Gagnon.
January 3, 1989
I hate to bother you. I know you must be busy. However my duty forces me to write you this one more time before I take remedial steps to protect this Apostolate of Our Lady.
Mr. E. Michael Jones has again publicly stated that you called me a liar. I enclose a photocopy of the page of his December 1988 magazine wherein he made this statement. You can verify for yourself that I have not invented such a report but Mr. E. Michael Jones has now repeated this too many times.
I therefore ask you humbly but insistently that you respond to my earlier letter (enclosed herein you will find a copy) dated the First Saturday of November, November 5, 1988 regarding these statements that Jones alleges you made. I cannot wait much longer before I answer this published allegation of Jones.
With regard to the above mentioned allegations of Jones that you, Cardinal Gagnon said that I, Father Gruner am a liar, I draw attention to what I wrote you on November 5, 1988, namely:
'I must note that not even in your letter of April 15, 1988 had you ever said such a thing. In that April letter you referred to "unfounded affirmations" but never suggested that I had lied. However, since I replied to you on August 15, 1988 I think you know that all affirmations I have made are not unfounded nor are there any lies to be found in my speech or my writing.'
I trust you agree with me and will state this as soon as possible. In any case I look forward to your response to my November 5, 1988 and this letter very soon.
Yours in Jesus, Mary and Joseph,
Father Nicholas Gruner
As we go to Press, no answer from Cardinal Gagnon has been received.